"Science is a religion"

[Blackmail!]

Yup. That's the point that I'm making. It's more regulated than most aspects of business, but if you're talking about finding some moral reason that makes science better or worse than any other industry, there really isn't one. People in general stick to ideals only if it suits their purpose.

Depending on the field and context, scientific research may or may not be an industry. If you work in the pharmaceutical field, yes it is.
I fear you're making very broad generalizations, and that you're heavily biased because of your own personal experience of scientific research (or perhaps you weren't in a particularily good mood today). I read lots of personal projections here. If you failed or feel disgruntled by you current work or supervisor, it doesn't imply that it's true for everybody and in most situations.

And about your postmodernist criticism of science, let me recommend you to read Alan Sokal.

 

[Blackmail!]

With a completely realistic impression of the scientific community, it is better to be skeptical than swallow the next big-pharma-produced wonder-drug that comes along claiming to cure restless leg syndrome.

Who are you to pretend you have a complete "realistic" perception of what the scientific community is?

I don't see a practical purpose in arguing over what science and religion "can potentially be". Because all you're limited by is imagination, really, and these words are defined in many different ways by many different people. Arguing about "the ideal" is hardly useful when social scientists, scientists and philosophers can't even agree on what the ideal is! The idea of the "scientific method" is actually relatively new itself. Philosophically speaking it only came about in the 20th century in an effort to try to define "natural studies" under an umbrella word. If you look at the historical perspective of the idea of the "scientific method", it's a retrospective definition of rich-boy research from the 17th-19th century (most notably that of Robert Boyle). It's no wonder then, that no one adheres to "the scientific method" in reality. The way that definition came about was itself suspect, and most research conducted today would be incredibly inefficient if the supposed "scientific method" was used. Read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, it's the most-cited social science paper in history.

Once again, postmodernist cliché.

Kuhn didn't exactly say that (he's more "nuanced", to use a word you seem to appreciate), by the way, and your position seems closer to Feyerabend's.

Exactly! I believe that there is no point in talking about the relative merits of a democratic republic and an autocratic government. It all depends on the specific people in charge! Otherwise the conclusions that you draw are so general that it's completely useless, whether speaking about current reality or for formulation of policy in the future. Just like I do not criticise "science" in general and simply point out that administrative methods, means of obtaining funding and the peer-review process do not help the objective research process or adhere to what people believe science to be, it's ridiculous to use preconceptions of religion or science (that make up an incredibly narrow slice of what it actually IS) to draw broad conclusions about either subject.

Once again, perhaps your supervisor is an asshole, perhaps you're angry because you did not get the grant you wanted even after years of post-doc research, perhaps you feel that you are better and smarter than everybody (and especially better than the assholes that get published and/or promoted in your laboratory instead of you or your friends)... and so on... Perhaps that's all true. Perhaps it's not, we have no way of knowing for sure.

I know what kind of tricky marathon it can be to get a fund. It can be painful indeed, and it often requires non-scientific skills to negociate many steps. But I do not think that's a reason "to throw the baby out with the bathwater".

What I really adore when I read you, is the blatant contradictions between the principles you claim to adhere, and the way you immediately betray them during the next sentence. You said one should not make "broad conclusions"... but that's exactly what you're continuously making here.
Broad conclusions and heavy generalizations everywhere, plus the constant claim that you are "more realistic" and "more objective" while in fact, just like anybody, I'm sure you can acknowledge you're as deeply subjective as most of us here.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

[MENTION][/MENTION]

Yup. That's the point that I'm making. It's more regulated than most aspects of business, but if you're talking about finding some moral reason that makes science better or worse than any other industry, there really isn't one. People in general stick to ideals only if it suits their purpose.

When you agreed with the idea that there's no point in debating those different political systems, it indicated a much broader difference in philosophy than I expected, so I wasn't quite sure where to start or how to respond (or if there was a reason to bother continuing from there).

But I do want to respond to this. I don't think there is any moral reason science is superior. There is a practical, functional reason it is superior, such that even a jackass practicing science will likely provide better results than a non-jackass practicing some sort of religious woo woo, or just eschewing science without a substitute.

It's worth noting that science and religion are more fundamental than industries. Even I can practice science on a day-to-day basis. There is a scientific way of doing things. It's like logic (actually, it is a subsidiary of logic). Logic is something that serves a valuable purpose. Even if every credentialed logician were a dipshit, logic would continue to be just as valuable for me to use. It would still be just as superior to non-logical methods.

 

[Blackmail!]

And to get back to the subject, if you really think Science is a kind of religion or is totally relative to its social context, then let me quote Alan Sokal:

"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.)"

 

[Thalassa]

that was an einstein quote, thought it was interesting. I don't belong to or participate in any religious activity. Science cannot stand on it's own, it needs a catalyst. religion was the catalyst at one time, what is it now?

I'm not sure it only needs a catalyst, it needs ethics. Science without ethics is dangerous to all life.

 

[RaptorWizard]

I'm not sure it only needs a catalyst, it needs ethics. Science without ethics is dangerous to all life.

wtf boom

 

[Thalassa]

As I understand religion it provides an ethical framework and object of devotion, I'm not sure if science actually qualifies as religion given that criteria.

But some people believe in it exclusively and dogmatically, with blind faith, even things that cannot ever (or currently) be proven, they speak of it as if it were hard cold fact.

And apparently some people believe, for example, what an abstract math problem could theorize about space, time, or reality is "harder science" than what psychiatry or neurology could know about human brains, which we can observe through various machines for electronic impulses, and in some cases directly.

Those people remind me of uneducated religious freaks (not saying all religious people are freaks, I'm talking about ignorant freaks, maybe that's why "street preachers" upset you as a more educated Catholic) who would pretty much twist anything about science to suit their own belief system.

Some people seem to think science is the only unfallable thing in the world, but science has actually made mistakes (fatal mistakes) and incorrect predictions, so yes people who act like it's the only thing we need (no history, no social science, no psychology, no religion)...yes they pretty much are replacing the idea of "God" with science.

Not all scientists or people who love science do that, but that's where the idea of "science is a religion" comes from, surely.

 

[Thalassa]

wtf boom

That's right. For example, lobotomies, atomic bombs, chemotherapy, air and water pollution by chemicals, "fake foods" just to name a few.

 

[Mole]

That's right. For example, lobotomies, atomic bombs, chemotherapy, air and water pollution by chemicals, "fake foods" just to name a few.

I think there is a confusion between science and technology.

Science seeks to understand Nature, while technology seeks application.

And of course an application may be good or bad, but understanding is neither good nor bad.

 

[Coriolis]

I think there is a confusion between science and technology.

Science seeks to understand Nature, while technology seeks application.

And of course an application may be good or bad, but understanding is neither good nor bad.

This is correct. I wish more people understood this distinction.

 

[TopherRed]

I think it comes down to this: science has a culture.

It is not a religion unto itself, although it does address questions similar to what religion addresses (such as "where do we come from?", "why are we here?", and even in a non-answer sort of way, "what is our purpose?").

Scientists are not unbiased perfect folk. Objectivity is held above most values in the scientific culture, but that doesn't mean a scientist is objective; just that they strive to be (and not all do).

Scientific theory, as a result, is never perfect; it is a constant process of refinement, overturning and replacement and although we seem to know more than when we started.

Can science disprove God? If that was the OP's real question, I don't think they've studied with the rabbi's. ;-) The more educated you are the less you believe science and religion conflict. So says the Pastoral Ministry major at a fully accredited university (theology and the study of biblical manuscripts are a part of my coursework).

 

[Mole]

I think it comes down to this: science has a culture.

It is not a religion unto itself, although it does address questions similar to what religion addresses (such as "where do we come from?", "why are we here?", and even in a non-answer sort of way, "what is our purpose?").

Scientists are not unbiased perfect folk. Objectivity is held above most values in the scientific culture, but that doesn't mean a scientist is objective; just that they strive to be (and not all do).

Scientific theory, as a result, is never perfect; it is a constant process of refinement, overturning and replacement and although we seem to know more than when we started.

Can science disprove God? If that was the OP's real question, I don't think they've studied with the rabbi's. ;-) The more educated you are the less you believe science and religion conflict. So says the Pastoral Ministry major at a fully accredited university (theology and the study of biblical manuscripts are a part of my coursework).

Letting go of God requires moral courage, and although physical courage is common, moral courage is rare.

 

[TopherRed]

Letting go of God requires moral courage, and although physical courage is common, moral courage is rare.

Please do go on. I would hate to launch out without proper context.

 

[Coriolis]

It is not a religion unto itself, although it does address questions similar to what religion addresses (such as "where do we come from?", "why are we here?", and even in a non-answer sort of way, "what is our purpose?").

Scientists are not unbiased perfect folk. Objectivity is held above most values in the scientific culture, but that doesn't mean a scientist is objective; just that they strive to be (and not all do).

Scientific theory, as a result, is never perfect; it is a constant process of refinement, overturning and replacement and although we seem to know more than when we started.

Can science disprove God? If that was the OP's real question, I don't think they've studied with the rabbi's. ;-) The more educated you are the less you believe science and religion conflict. So says the Pastoral Ministry major at a fully accredited university (theology and the study of biblical manuscripts are a part of my coursework).

Science does try to answer questions like "where do we come from" and "how did we (and the universe as we know it) come to be here". It does not address what our purpose is, nor whether there is a God. These questions do not lend themselves to objective analysis. The more educated one is, the more one understands which questions science can answer, and which require the subjective consideration of religion or spirituality. Most scientists have no problem participating in life on both levels, as appropriate. Scientific "culture" values not only objectivity but also creativity, critical thinking, honesty and integrity, and even humility in more ways than one. Most religious or spiritual systems share some of these; few share all.

 

[Mole]

Please do go on. I would hate to launch out without proper context.

Well, letting go of God is like letting go of our mother's hand in a busy supermarket - it is scary and disorientating.

 

[TopherRed]

Well, letting go of God is like letting go of our mother's hand in a busy supermarket - it is scary and disorientating.

So...you see God in a maternal context. You see God as somebody (or something), if I can infer, that we depend on (indeed cling to) for guidance, protection, support and sustenance; someone, if I understand your point correctly, that we should outgrow, and come to sustain ourselves, guide our own decisions and protect ourselves. Is that accurate?

 

[Mole]

So...you see God in a maternal context. You see God as somebody (or something), if I can infer, that we depend on (indeed cling to) for guidance, protection, support and sustenance; someone, if I understand your point correctly, that we should outgrow, and come to sustain ourselves, guide our own decisions and protect ourselves. Is that accurate?

Sure, God is not dead, God is Dad.

 

[Forever_Jung]

I have always assumed the whole "science is a religion" thing has to do with many people taking scientific fact on faith. For example, I know very little about science. But when I'm told something is scientifically proven by a few high profile scientists, I automatically believe them, without researching their claims. I take it on faith that it's true. Planets having their own gravitational fields? I am pretty hazy on how that works exactly. But I trust Newton knew what he was talking about. I'm not proud of it, but it's what I do. And it's what a lot of people do.

I know this isn't the same thing, per se, but this attitude towards science reminds me of the old days, where religious officials were presumed to be very wise and learned about God and that God ordained everything. The peasants just trusted the church, because they were uneducated. Meanwhile, the monks and bishops were very literate and educated. To a pig farmer, all their weird explanations for why God does this or that, probably sounded fairly reasonable, who was he to contradict some guy who has spent his whole life studying the subject? Plus those Cathedrals are awfully impressive.

A lot of folks today trust scientists in the same way. Luckily, scientists supposedly adhere to the scientific method (they are, scientists after all), so at least we're putting our faith in something reliable. They're not just rich Italian dudes demanding gold, because God is hungry. But we still seem to take the facts on faith and get dazzled by all the high tech mumbo jumbo. It certainly sounds impressive.

I'm not saying science is a religion! I just don't like it when my fellow ignoramuses (ignorami?) arrogantly praise science and bash religious folk as living in the dark ages, when they have no idea how science works themselves. I guess it's better than religious folk who know nothing about religion bashing science (which is also a problem in this world), but it's still hypocritical.

 

[Mole]

I have always assumed the whole "science is a religion" thing has to do with many people taking scientific fact on faith.

As a general principle we know that faith is not based on evidence and reason, just as we know that science is based on evidence and reason.

So anyone knowing this general principle does not take science on faith.

 

[Forever_Jung]

So anyone knowing this general principle does not take science on faith.

I apologize, I'm not expressing myself clearly.

I did not mean to say scientific facts are a leap of faith. I should have said scientific "fact". If you make bullshit look sciencey and academic, many people can't tell the difference. We take it on faith that the findings in question, were discovered using the scientific method. But we never really check. All the scientists have to say is: "Yup, we scienced it. Trust us." And many people will just assume they did their due diligence.

Look at all the damage Jenny McCarthy did with all her BS about autism and vaccinations. The assurance that there was some science there somewhere, and that some doctors agreed, was enough to fool countless people.